MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118102466 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042968

Interpreting the Lancet surgical indicators in Somaliland: a cross-sectional study

2020· article· en· W3118102466 on OpenAlexaff
Shukri Dahir, Cesia Cotache‐Condor, Tessa Concepcion, Mubarak Mohamed, Dan Poenaru, Edna Adan Ismail, Henry E. Rice, Emily R. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersDuke Global Health Institute, Duke UniversityBaylor University
KeywordsMedicinePreparednessWorkforcePsychological interventionCross-sectional studyHealth carePopulationMedical emergencyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The unmet burden of surgical care is high in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) proposed six indicators to guide the development of national plans for improving and monitoring access to essential surgical care. This study aimed to characterise the Somaliland surgical health system according to the LCoGS indicators and provide recommendations for next-step interventions. Methods In this cross-sectional nationwide study, the WHO’s Surgical Assessment Tool–Hospital Walkthrough and geographical mapping were used for data collection at 15 surgically capable hospitals. LCoGS indicators for preparedness was defined as access to timely surgery and specialist surgical workforce density (surgeons, anaesthesiologists and obstetricians/SAO), delivery was defined as surgical volume, and impact was defined as protection against impoverishment and catastrophic expenditure. Indicators were compared with the LCoGS goals and were stratified by region. Results The healthcare system in Somaliland does not meet any of the six LCoGS targets for preparedness, delivery or impact. We estimate that only 19% of the population has timely access to essential surgery, less than the LCoGS goal of 80% coverage. The number of specialist SAO providers is 0.8 per 100 000, compared with an LCoGS goal of 20 SAO per 100 000. Surgical volume is 368 procedures per 100 000 people, while the LCoGS goal is 5000 procedures per 100 000. Protection against impoverishing expenditures was only 18% and against catastrophic expenditures 1%, both far below the LCoGS goal of 100% protection. Conclusion We found several gaps in the surgical system in Somaliland using the LCoGS indicators and target goals. These metrics provide a broad view of current status and gaps in surgical care, and can be used as benchmarks of progress towards universal health coverage for the provision of safe, affordable, and timely surgical, obstetric and anaesthesia care in Somaliland.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207